DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Soil Crust Sampling at BCA 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Soil Crust Sampling at BCA 2009 Biological soil crust distribution on the Boardman Conservation Area: Results from 2009 monitoring Adrien Elseroad, Joseph St. Peter, and Maile Uchida The Nature Conservancy March 2010 Introduction Biological soil crusts are an important component of biological diversity in semi-arid and arid ecosystems. Composed of algae, fungi, cyanobacteria, lichens, and bryophytes, biological soil crusts contribute to nutrient cycling, regulation of water flow, improved soil stability and structure, and provide safe sites for vascular plant establishment (Eldridge and Rosentreter 1999, Belnap et al. 2001). Biological soil crusts are also important indicators of ecological condition because they are sensitive to disturbances such as grazing and other forms of trampling (Anderson et al. 1982, Marble and Harper 1989, Ponzetti and McCune 2001) and fire (Callison et al. 1985, Eldridge and Bradstock 1994, Johansen et al. 1993). They are also ideal indicators for evaluating long-term ecological change because unlike vascular plants, they are not greatly influenced by short-term climatic conditions (Belnap et al. 2001). In spring 2009, we initiated a biological soil crust monitoring program on the Boardman Conservation Area. The main objective of monitoring biological soil crusts was to provide an additional measure of ecological condition that complements the on-going vegetation monitoring program. Results from monitoring will be used to evaluate ecological change resulting from management actions and natural disturbances such as fire. This report describes the first year results from biological soil crust monitoring, and provides an assessment of potential factors influencing biological soil crust distribution on the Conservation Area. Methods Data collection Biological soil crusts were monitored at all 57 long-term vegetation monitoring plots (Figure 1) at the same time vegetation monitoring plots were sampled (see Elseroad et al. 2010 for vegetation monitoring results). At each vegetation monitoring plot, a 50m biological soil crust monitoring transect was run 135° from the 50m end of the vegetation monitoring plot baseline transect (Figure 2). The end of the crust transect was marked with rebar and tagged, and the location was recorded with a Juno GPS unit. Starting at a random number between 3m and 4m along the biological soil crust transect, a quadrat frame was placed every 3m for a total of 15 quadrats per transect. The first 3m along the transect was not sampled to avoid soil disturbance created by establishing the transect or from vegetation monitoring plot sampling. The quadrat frame was always placed on the inside of the transect (the side facing the vegetation plot), and the observer walked only on the outside of the transect, also to avoid sampling disturbed soil. Biological soil crust distribution on the Boardman Conservation Area- results from 2009 monitoring 1 The quadrat consisted of a 25cm x 25cm frame with 20 points (Figure 3). After the quadrat was placed on the ground, the ground underneath the quadrat was sprayed with water to increase the visibility of the crust. At each of the 20 points on the frame, a pin flag was dropped and the soil surface type intercepted was viewed with a hand lens and recorded as one of the following soil surface types: bare soil, litter, rock, plant base, or one of the following biological soil crust morphological groups: cyanobacteria, moss, crustose lichen, squamulose lichen, foliose lichen, and fruiticose lichen (Appendix A). Morphological groups are a modified version of those provided in Belnap et al. (2001). Initally, liverworts and gelatinous lichens were also included as morphological groups, but these groups were eliminated due to difficulties positively identifying them in the field. Liverworts were never positively identified as such, but if they were unknowingly sampled, they were recorded as a morphologically similar lichen group. Gelatinous lichen species were categorized based on their morphology rather than their gelatinous nature (i.e. Leptochidium albociliatum, a gelatinous, foliose lichen, was categorized as foliose rather than gelatinous). Future biological soil crust sampling is planned to occur during the first year of each long-term vegetation monitoring plot sampling cycle. Long-term vegetation monitoring plots are generally sampled for three years in a row every 5 years. Since 2009 was the beginning of a vegetation monitoring plot sampling cycle, biological soil crust transects will be sampled next in 2017. Data analysis Cover of surface types in each quadrat was calculated as: (the number of points intercepted / 20) *100. Average cover of each soil surface type was then calculated for each transect. To evaluate factors influencing the distribution of biological soil crust across the Boardman Conservation Area, average crust cover was calculated by soil texture class, vegetation condition class, and whether or not the transects burned in the 2008 wildfires. The Morrow County soil survey (Holser 1983) was used to classify soils into three general soil texture classes: silt loams, sandy loams, and loamy sands. Vegetation condition classes were assigned during vegetation mapping in 2002, and are a qualitative assessment of overall ecological condition based on the abundance of cheatgrass and native perennial bunchgrasses (Elseroad 2002). The 2008 wildfires burned approximately 14,000 acres in July and August 2008, in the eastern portion of the Boardman Conservation Area and most of the adjacent Boardman Bombing Range (Nelson 2009). Results The morphological groups used in this study were a relatively simple method for monitoring biological soil crust. The soil surface components that were most difficult to distinguish in the field were bare ground vs. cyanobacteria, and crustose lichens vs. squamulose lichens. With careful examination, cyanobacteria crust could be distinguished from bare ground by its structured appearance, and by noting the slight resistance felt when pushed with a finger. When lichens were encountered that were difficult to categorize easily as either crustose or squamulose, the photos provided in Appendix A were consulted. In most cases, the lichens were probably categorized consistently, but because of potential differences in categorizing between observers, evaluating total lichen cover rather than by morphological group may be a more accurate way to assess future changes over time. Biological soil crust distribution on the Boardman Conservation Area- results from 2009 monitoring 2 Biological soil crust cover across all transects Biological soil crust was the dominant soil surface category encountered on the transects (Figure 4, Table 1). Cover of all biological soil crust morphological groups combined averaged 56%. Bare soil averaged 22%, plant base averaged 7%, and litter averaged 14%. Rock cover averaged only 0.2%, and was found in only 3 of the 57 transects. Moss and cyanobacteria were the dominant biological soil crust morphological groups (Figure 5). Moss cover averaged 25% and cyanobacteria cover averaged 24%. Total lichen cover averaged 7% and was dominated by crustose lichens (Figure 4). Crustose lichen cover averaged 5%, compared to 1% cover for squamulose lichens, 0.75% cover for foliose lichens, and 0.02% cover for fruiticose lichens. Biological soil crust cover stratified by soil texture Biological soil crust cover and composition appeared to be strongly influenced by soil texture (Figure 6). Total biological soil crust cover was greater on sandy loams (average cover 61%) and silt loams (average cover 58%) compared to loamy sands (average cover 46%). Total lichen cover declined with increasing sandiness (silt loams< sandy loams<loamy sands). Total lichen cover averaged 11% in silt loams, 6% in sandy loams, and 0.6% in loamy sands. The proportion of the more morphologically complex lichens (e.g. squamulose, foliose, and fruiticose lichens) also declined with increasing sandiness (Figure 6). Biological soil crust cover stratified by vegetative condition class The cover of each biological soil crust morphological group varied considerably when stratified by vegetation condition class (Figure 7). Total biological soil crust cover declined as vegetation condition declined from “high” to “low”. Total biological soil crust averaged 79% in high condition classes, 69% in medium-high condition classes, 54% in medium condition classes, 48% in medium low condition classes, and 46% in low condition classes. Biological soil crust composition also varied by vegetation condition class. In high condition classes, biological soil crust was dominated by moss (average cover 43%) and lichens (average cover 24%), with less cover of cyanobacteria (average cover 12%). In comparison, in the other condition classes the proportion of moss and cyanobacteria was nearly equal (Figure 7). Total lichen cover declined as vegetation condition declined from “high” to “low”. Total lichen cover averaged 24% in high condition classes, 15% in medium-high condition classes, 6% in medium condition classes, 3% in medium low condition classes, and 0.5% in low condition classes. Also, the proportion of the more morphologically complex lichens (e.g. squamulose, foliose, and fruiticose lichens) declined as vegetation condition declined (Figure 7). While crustose lichens were the most common lichens in all condition classes, in lower condition classes they were a greater proportion of the overall lichen cover. Biological soil crust cover stratified by recent wildfire burning Biological
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Long-Term Changes in Biological Soil Crust Cover and Composition Eva Dettweiler-Robinson1*, Jeanne M Ponzetti2 and Jonathan D Bakker3
    Dettweiler-Robinson et al. Ecological Processes 2013, 2:5 http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/2/1/5 RESEARCH Open Access Long-term changes in biological soil crust cover and composition Eva Dettweiler-Robinson1*, Jeanne M Ponzetti2 and Jonathan D Bakker3 Abstract Introduction: Communities change over time due to disturbances, variations in climate, and species invasions. Biological soil crust communities are important because they contribute to erosion control and nutrient cycling. Crust types may respond differently to changes in environmental conditions: single-celled organisms and bryophytes quickly recover after a disturbance, while lichens are slow growing and dominate favorable sites. Community change in crusts has seldom been assessed using repeated measures. For this study, we hypothesized that changes in crust composition were related to disturbance, topographic position, and invasive vegetation. Methods: We monitored permanent plots in the Columbia Basin in 1999 and 2010 and compared changes in crust composition, cover, richness, and turnover with predictor variables of herbivore exclosure, elevation, heat load index, time since fire, presence of an invasive grass, and change in cover of the invasive grass. Results: Bryophytes were cosmopolitan with high cover. Dominant lichens did not change dramatically. Indicator taxa differed by monitoring year. Bryophyte and total crust cover declined, and there was lower turnover outside of herbivore exclosures. Lichen cover did not change significantly. Plots that burned recently had high turnover. Increase in taxon richness was correlated with presence of an invasive grass in 1999. Change in cover of the invasive grass was positively related to proportional loss and negatively related to gain. Conclusions: Composition and turnover metrics differed significantly over 11 years, though cover was more stable between years.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Soil Crust Community Types Differ in Key Ecological Functions
    UC Riverside UC Riverside Previously Published Works Title Biological soil crust community types differ in key ecological functions Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2cs0f55w Authors Pietrasiak, Nicole David Lam Jeffrey R. Johansen et al. Publication Date 2013-10-01 DOI 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.05.011 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Soil Biology & Biochemistry 65 (2013) 168e171 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Soil Biology & Biochemistry journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soilbio Short communication Biological soil crust community types differ in key ecological functions Nicole Pietrasiak a,*, John U. Regus b, Jeffrey R. Johansen c,e, David Lam a, Joel L. Sachs b, Louis S. Santiago d a University of California, Riverside, Soil and Water Sciences Program, Department of Environmental Sciences, 2258 Geology Building, Riverside, CA 92521, USA b University of California, Riverside, Department of Biology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA c Biology Department, John Carroll University, 1 John Carroll Blvd., University Heights, OH 44118, USA d University of California, Riverside, Botany & Plant Sciences Department, 3113 Bachelor Hall, Riverside, CA 92521, USA e Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Branisovska 31, 370 05 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic article info abstract Article history: Soil stability, nitrogen and carbon fixation were assessed for eight biological soil crust community types Received 22 February 2013 within a Mojave Desert wilderness site. Cyanolichen crust outperformed all other crusts in multi- Received in revised form functionality whereas incipient crust had the poorest performance. A finely divided classification of 17 May 2013 biological soil crust communities improves estimation of ecosystem function and strengthens the Accepted 18 May 2013 accuracy of landscape-scale assessments.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Soil Crust Rehabilitation in Theory and Practice: an Underexploited Opportunity Matthew A
    REVIEW Biological Soil Crust Rehabilitation in Theory and Practice: An Underexploited Opportunity Matthew A. Bowker1,2 Abstract techniques; and (3) monitoring. Statistical predictive Biological soil crusts (BSCs) are ubiquitous lichen–bryo- modeling is a useful method for estimating the potential phyte microbial communities, which are critical structural BSC condition of a rehabilitation site. Various rehabilita- and functional components of many ecosystems. How- tion techniques attempt to correct, in decreasing order of ever, BSCs are rarely addressed in the restoration litera- difficulty, active soil erosion (e.g., stabilization techni- ture. The purposes of this review were to examine the ques), resource deficiencies (e.g., moisture and nutrient ecological roles BSCs play in succession models, the augmentation), or BSC propagule scarcity (e.g., inoc- backbone of restoration theory, and to discuss the prac- ulation). Success will probably be contingent on prior tical aspects of rehabilitating BSCs to disturbed eco- evaluation of site conditions and accurate identification systems. Most evidence indicates that BSCs facilitate of constraints to BSC reestablishment. Rehabilitation of succession to later seres, suggesting that assisted recovery BSCs is attainable and may be required in the recovery of of BSCs could speed up succession. Because BSCs are some ecosystems. The strong influence that BSCs exert ecosystem engineers in high abiotic stress systems, loss of on ecosystems is an underexploited opportunity for re- BSCs may be synonymous with crossing degradation storationists to return disturbed ecosystems to a desirable thresholds. However, assisted recovery of BSCs may trajectory. allow a transition from a degraded steady state to a more desired alternative steady state. In practice, BSC rehabili- Key words: aridlands, cryptobiotic soil crusts, cryptogams, tation has three major components: (1) establishment of degradation thresholds, state-and-transition models, goals; (2) selection and implementation of rehabilitation succession.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Regulation in Cyanobacterial Biocrusts from Drylands: Negative Impacts of Anthropogenic Disturbance
    water Article Water Regulation in Cyanobacterial Biocrusts from Drylands: Negative Impacts of Anthropogenic Disturbance Yolanda Cantón 1,2,*, Sonia Chamizo 1,2, Emilio Rodriguez-Caballero 1,2 , Roberto Lázaro 3, Beatriz Roncero-Ramos 1 , José Raúl Román 1 and Albert Solé-Benet 3 1 Department of Agronomy, University of Almeria, Carretera de Sacramento sn., La Cañada de San Urbano, 04120 Almeria, Spain; scd394@ual.es (S.C.); rce959@ual.es (E.R.-C.); brr275@ual.es (B.R.-R.); jrf979@ual.es (J.R.R.) 2 Research Centre for Scientific Collections from the University of Almería (CECOUAL), Carretera de Sacramento sn., La Cañada de San Urbano, 04120 Almeria, Spain 3 Experimental Station of Arid Zones, CSIC, Carretera de Sacramento sn., La Cañada de San Urbano, 04120 Almeria, Spain; lazaro@eeza.csic.es (R.L.); albert@eeza.csic.es (A.S.-B.) * Correspondence: ycanton@ual.es Received: 26 December 2019; Accepted: 4 March 2020; Published: 6 March 2020 Abstract: Arid and semi-arid ecosystems are characterized by patchy vegetation and variable resource availability. The interplant spaces of these ecosystems are very often covered by cyanobacteria-dominated biocrusts, which are the primary colonizers of terrestrial ecosystems and key in facilitating the succession of other biocrust organisms and plants. Cyanobacterial biocrusts regulate the horizontal and vertical fluxes of water, carbon and nutrients into and from the soil and play crucial hydrological, geomorphological and ecological roles in these ecosystems. In this paper, we analyze the influence of cyanobacterial biocrusts on water balance components (infiltration-runoff, evaporation, soil moisture and non-rainfall water inputs (NRWIs)) in representative semiarid ecosystems in southeastern Spain.
    [Show full text]
  • National Cooperative Soil Survey and Biological Soil Crusts
    Biological Soil Crusts Status Report 2003 National Cooperative Soil Survey Conference Plymouth, Massachusetts June 16 - 20, 2003 Table of Contents I. NCSS 2003 National Conference Proceedings II. Report and recommendations of the soil crust task force - 2002 West Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Conference Task Force Members Charges Part I. Executive Summary and Recommendations Part II. Report on Charges Part III. Research Needs, Action Items, Additional Charges Part IV. Resources for Additional Information Part V. Appendices Appendix 1 - Agency needs Appendix 2 - Draft material for incorporation into the Soil Survey Manual Introduction Relationship to Mineral Crusts Types of Biological Soil Crusts Figure 1. Biological soil crust types. Major Components of Soil Crusts: Cyanobacteria, Lichens, and Mosses Table 1. Morphological groups for biological crust components and their N-fixing characteristics. (Belnap et al. 2001) Soil Surface Roughness/Crust Age Distribution of Crusts References Appendix 3 - Guidelines for describing soil surface features, Version 2.0 Surface features Table 1. Surface features Determining Percent Cover Equipment Method 1. Step-point Method 2. Ocular estimate with quadrats Method 3. Line-point quadrat Method 4. Stratified line-point intercept Method 5. Ocular estimate Appendix 3a - Data sheets used in Moab field test Appendix 4 - Soil descriptions Discussion Group 1 Group 3 Group 2 Group 4 Appendix 5 - Photography Biological Soil Crust Status Report NCSS National Conference June 16-20, 2003 Table of Contents III. Task force's response to the following questions posed by the 2002 West Regional Standards Committee 1. Are biological soil crusts plants, soil or combination of both? 2. Is it appropriate to think of these crusts as plant communities with potentials, state and transition? 3.
    [Show full text]
  • A Field Guide to Biological Soil Crusts of Western U.S. Drylands Common Lichens and Bryophytes
    A Field Guide to Biological Soil Crusts of Western U.S. Drylands Common Lichens and Bryophytes Roger Rosentreter Matthew Bowker Jayne Belnap Photographs by Stephen Sharnoff Roger Rosentreter, Ph.D. Bureau of Land Management Idaho State Office 1387 S. Vinnell Way Boise, ID 83709 Matthew Bowker, Ph.D. Center for Environmental Science and Education Northern Arizona University Box 5694 Flagstaff, AZ 86011 Jayne Belnap, Ph.D. U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Biological Science Center Canyonlands Research Station 2290 S. West Resource Blvd. Moab, UT 84532 Design and layout by Tina M. Kister, U.S. Geological Survey, Canyonlands Research Station, 2290 S. West Resource Blvd., Moab, UT 84532 All photos, unless otherwise indicated, copyright © 2007 Stephen Sharnoff, Ste- phen Sharnoff Photography, 2709 10th St., Unit E, Berkeley, CA 94710-2608, www.sharnoffphotos.com/. Rosentreter, R., M. Bowker, and J. Belnap. 2007. A Field Guide to Biological Soil Crusts of Western U.S. Drylands. U.S. Government Printing Office, Denver, Colorado. Cover photos: Biological soil crust in Canyonlands National Park, Utah, cour- tesy of the U.S. Geological Survey. 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................... 4 How to use this guide .................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................... 4 Crust composition ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Forest and Rangeland Soils of the United
    Richard V. Pouyat Deborah S. Page-Dumroese Toral Patel-Weynand Linda H. Geiser Editors Forest and Rangeland Soils of the United States Under Changing Conditions A Comprehensive Science Synthesis Forest and Rangeland Soils of the United States Under Changing Conditions Richard V. Pouyat • Deborah S. Page-Dumroese Toral Patel-Weynand • Linda H. Geiser Editors Forest and Rangeland Soils of the United States Under Changing Conditions A Comprehensive Science Synthesis Editors Richard V. Pouyat Deborah S. Page-Dumroese Northern Research Station Rocky Mountain Research Station USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service Newark, DE, USA Moscow, ID, USA Toral Patel-Weynand Linda H. Geiser Washington Office Washington Office USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service Washington, DC, USA Washington, DC, USA ISBN 978-3-030-45215-5 ISBN 978-3-030-45216-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45216-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020 . This book is an open access publication. Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
    [Show full text]
  • Microbial Biobanking – Cyanobacteria-Rich Topsoil Facilitates Mine Rehabilitation
    Biogeosciences, 16, 2189–2204, 2019 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-2189-2019 © Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Microbial biobanking – cyanobacteria-rich topsoil facilitates mine rehabilitation Wendy Williams1, Angela Chilton2, Mel Schneemilch1, Stephen Williams1, Brett Neilan3, and Colin Driscoll4 1School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, The University of Queensland, Gatton Campus 4343, Australia 2Australian Centre for Astrobiology and School of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia 3School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia 4Hunter Eco, P.O. Box 1047, Toronto, NSW, 2283, Australia Correspondence: Wendy Williams (wendy.williams@uq.edu.au) Received: 13 November 2017 – Discussion started: 20 November 2017 Revised: 10 January 2019 – Accepted: 23 January 2019 – Published: 28 May 2019 Abstract. Restoration of soils post-mining requires key so- tial for biocrust re-establishment. In general, the resilience lutions to complex issues through which the disturbance of of cyanobacteria to burial in topsoil stockpiles in both the topsoil incorporating soil microbial communities can result short and long term was significant; however, in an arid en- in a modification to ecosystem function. This research was in vironment recolonisation and community diversity could be collaboration with Iluka Resources at the Jacinth–Ambrosia impeded by drought. Biocrust re-establishment during mine (J–A) mineral sand mine located in a semi-arid chenopod rehabilitation relies on the role of cyanobacteria as a means shrubland in southern Australia. At J–A, assemblages of mi- of early soil stabilisation. At J–A mine operations do not croorganisms and microflora inhabit at least half of the soil threaten the survival of any of the organisms we studied.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management
    BIOLOGICAL SOIL CRUSTS: ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT Technical Reference 1730-2 2001 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management U.S. Geological Survey Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology & Management This publication was jointly funded by the USDI, BLM, and USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center. Though this document was produced through an interagency effort, the following BLM numbers have been assigned for tracking and administrative purposes: Technical Reference 1730-2 BLM/ID/ST-01/001+1730 Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology & Management Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management Authors: Jayne Belnap Julie Hilty Kaltenecker USDI Geological Survey Boise State University/USDI Bureau of Land Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center Management Moab, Utah Idaho State Office, BLM Boise, Idaho Roger Rosentreter John Williams USDI Bureau of Land Management USDA Agricultural Research Service Idaho State Office Columbia Plateau Conservation Research Center Boise, Idaho Pendleton, Oregon Steve Leonard David Eldridge USDI Bureau of Land Management Department of Land and Water Conservation National Riparian Service Team New South Wales Prineville, Oregon Australia Illustrated by Meggan Laxalt Edited by Pam Peterson Produced By United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Printed Materials Distribution Center BC-650-B P.O. Box 25047 Denver, Colorado 80225-0047 Technical Reference 1730-2 2001 Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology & Management ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We gratefully acknowledge the following individuals
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Biological Soil Crusts on Rainwater And
    Plant and Soil (2005) 278:235–251 Ó Springer 2005 DOI 10.1007/s11104-005-8550-9 The effect of biological soil crusts on throughput of rainwater and N into Lake Michigan sand dune soils Rachel K. Thiet1,2,6, R.E.J. Boerner1, Moria Nagy3,5 & Richard Jardine4 1Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH , 43210, USA. 2Department of Environmental Studies, Antioch New England Graduate School, Keene, NH, 03431, USA. 3Department of Biology, John Carroll University, University Heights, OH , 44118, USA. 4Department of Mathematics, Keene State College, Keene, NH, 03435, USA. 5Applied Nanobioscience Center, State University, Tempe, AZ, 85282, USA. 6Corresponding author* Received 1 December 2004. Accepted in revised form 7 June 2005 Key words: biological soil crusts, cyanobacteria, ecosystem N budget, N fixation, rainwater throughput, sand dunes Abstract Biological soil crusts composed of cyanobacteria, green algae, bryophytes, and lichens colonize soils in arid and semiarid ecosystems worldwide and are responsible for significant N input to the soils of these eco- systems. Soil crusts also colonize active sand dunes in more humid regions, but studies of structure and function of such sand dune crusts are lacking. We identified the cyanobacterial, algal, and bryophytic constituents and N production and leachates of biological soil crusts that colonize beach dunes at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore along southern Lake Michigan in Indiana, USA. To determine the role of these crusts in this system, we conducted a greenhouse experiment in which intact soil cores with biological crusts were subjected to artificial rainfall over a full growing season.
    [Show full text]
  • A Novel Method to Evaluate Nutrient Retention by Biological Soil Crust Exopolymeric Matrix
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Recent Work Title A novel method to evaluate nutrient retention by biological soil crust exopolymeric matrix Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8068t8qp Journal Plant and Soil, 429(1-2) ISSN 0032-079X Authors Swenson, TL Couradeau, E Bowen, BP et al. Publication Date 2018-08-01 DOI 10.1007/s11104-017-3537-x Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Plant Soil https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-017-3537-x REGULAR ARTICLE A novel method to evaluate nutrient retention by biological soil crust exopolymeric matrix Tami L. Swenson & Estelle Couradeau & Benjamin P. Bowen & Roberto De Philippis & Federico Rossi & Gianmarco Mugnai & Trent R. Northen Received: 6 October 2017 /Accepted: 14 December 2017 # Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017 Abstract Methods We report new methods for the investigation Aims Biological soil crusts (biocrusts) are microbial of metabolite sorption on biocrusts compared to the communities commonly found in the upper layer of arid underlying unconsolidated subcrust fraction. A 13C–la- soils. These microorganisms release exopolysaccharides beled bacterial lysate metabolite mixture was incubated (EPS), which form the exopolymeric matrix (EPM), with biocrust, subcrust and biocrust-extracted EPS. allowing them to bond soil particles together and sur- Non-sorbed metabolites were extracted and analyzed vive long periods of dryness. The aim of this work is to by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. develop methods for measuring metabolite retention by Results This simple and rapid approach enabled the biocrust EPM and EPS. comparison of metabolite sorption on the biocrust EPM or EPS versus mineral sorption on the un- derlying soils.
    [Show full text]
  • Arches Visitor Guide 2017
    National Park Service Visitor Guide U.S. Department of the Interior Please read this important information about construction Major Road Arches and closures in 2017. Construction Construction crews are doing major road work through November 2017. Most work occurs at night to maximize visitor safety and minimize impacts on daytime travel. The paved road is closed 7pm to 7am Sunday through Thursday nights. Last park entry is at 6:30 pm on those nights; plan your visit to be out of the park by 7 pm. Some areas will close fully (day and night) for several weeks, including Devils Garden, Fiery Furnace, and The Windows. See go.nps.gov/archesconstruction for an updated schedule. Double Arch NPS PHOTO / JACOB W. FRANK Devils Garden Campground is closed for the length of the project. A Second Century of Service Expect daytime traffic delays and loose gravel on roadways. Please use caution Arches National Park welcomes a global millions of years of Earth’s history caring for America’s great scenic and when driving through construction zones. community of over one million visitors exposed by the tireless hands of water, historic places. Now we look ahead to each year. They come to experience ice, and wind. Erosional features that the next century of national parks and Work will include: balanced rocks, towering fins and spires, color the land paint rocky portraits of the wonder: How will today’s visitors shape • pulverizing and resurfacing pavement, and the world’s largest concentration of ancient sand dunes, tidal flats, rivers, and America’s shared future? How will • standardizing lane and shoulder natural sandstone arches.
    [Show full text]